why can't another label be used for same sex marriage?

[ConstantineTG]

I try to be open minded about this, but why can’t a union between homosexuals be called something else besides marriage? Most people in this type of a relationship say it is for financial reasons, that they have the same rights as hetero people regarding this and that’s why they want to get married. What happened to the phrase civil union? Why is the word marriage so important for homosexuals?
It is very misleading to use marriage because as a Catholic, you are considered married when it is by a priest.
I am not asking to start a big debate-but if the word marriage causes so much conflict in this, why not change the label? Perhaps common law partner or something --that way they still get the financial things and the word marriage can be removed from this.

Because rights were accorded to marriage, so for them to get what they want they have to have everything given to a married couple, including the term “marriage”.

 

[iloveangels]

I know exactly what you’re saying. However, your religious reasons (which also deal with consequences of a different sort) are ultimately irrelevant in this debate. The government is explicitly prohibited from considering the Catholic Church’s doctrinal position in making a decision on gay marriage. If you want to convince the government of anything, the only thing you can do is try to make a case that the state and society have interests that would be harmed by legalizing SSM. I have yet to hear a compelling case to that effect.

I know that you know exactly what I’m saying. I’m a convert and I used to be an atheist. There are civil arrangements and there are religious arrangements to things in life and they’re not the same. As a person who has no religion, you have absolutely nothing to say to a religious arrangement. It’s beyond your involvement and by your own declaration, beyond your perview–you have no religion. You do not have the right to contradict my religion any more than I have the right to try to convert you here on the spot.

I can fully understand your interest in Civil Issues, however. You have one vote just as I do. Use it wisely.

 

[Giants]

No, it’s not. You’re flailing on this one. This is about religion, not about social consequences. You’d probably like it if it were about social consequences. But it’s not. Social consequences may well happen, but it’ll just be too bad if they do. You’ll just have to deal with them the same way you deal with everything else, I guess.

No, actually, I’d love it if it were only about your religion. When religious people try to talk like sociologists, the results are usually pretty ugly.

 

[iloveangels]

No, actually, I’d love it if it were only about your religion. When religious people try to talk like sociologists, the results are usually pretty ugly.

And when non-religionists try to talk about religion, they sound ridiculous because they have NO. CLUE.

As I said before, you have one vote just as I do. Use it wisely.

 

[Giants]

I know that you know exactly what I’m saying. I’m a convert and I used to be an atheist. There are civil arrangements and there are religious arrangements to things in life and they’re not the same. As a person who has no religion, you have absolutely nothing to say to a religious arrangement. It’s beyond your involvement and by your own declaration, beyond your perview–you have no religion. You do not have the right to contradict my religion any more than I have the right to try to convert you here on the spot.

I can fully understand your interest in Civil Issues, however. You have one vote just as I do. Use it wisely.

I plan to. What I don’t plan to do, and what I’ve never tried to do, is tell the Catholic Church how it should view the matter. And that’s the primary difference between you and I. You want the secular government (which governs all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic) to affirm the Catholic Church’s definition on marriage. But I don’t care what the Catholic Church’s definition of marriage is. It can remain as it is for all time, as far as I’m concerned. I fully endorse your Church’s right to affirm its religious doctrines, within its walls.

 

[iloveangels]

I plan to. What I don’t plan to do, and what I’ve never tried to do, is tell the Catholic Church how it should view the matter. And that’s the primary difference between you and I. You want the secular government (which governs all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic) to affirm the Catholic Church’s definition on marriage. But I don’t care what the Catholic Church’s definition of marriage is. It can remain as it is for all time, as far as I’m concerned. I fully endorse your Church’s right to affirm its religious doctrines, within its walls.

No. You’re hammering at the wrong person this time, Giant. I don’t give a rip what the civil government does as long as they keep their distance from me and mine. I recognize that there is a difference between civil arrangements and religious arrangements. Catholics are going to have to deal with this using their considerable resources. They’ll eventually figure it out. They always do.

When it comes to civil government, I have one vote just as you do.

 

[Giants]

No. You’re hammering at the wrong person this time, Giant. I don’t give a rip what the civil government does as long as they keep their distance from me and mine. I recognize that there is a difference between civil arrangements and religious arrangements. Catholics are going to have to deal with this using their considerable resources. They’ll eventually figure it out. They always do.

When it comes to civil government, I have one vote just as you do.

Actually, neither one of us should get a vote on this. Even though we might win a popular vote on this issue someday, I don’t think the majority should get to vote on the rights given to the minority.

But other than that, I think we’re cool.

 

[iloveangels]

Actually, neither one of us should get a vote on this. Even though we might win a popular vote on this issue someday, I don’t think the majority should get to vote on the rights given to the minority.

That’s the way our silly government is set up. But living on this earth, you get a government no matter where you live, and this one is easier to live with than most, at this point in history. So it’s good enough.

But other than that, I think we’re cool.

I think on this that we understand each other enough, yes. This has to be a matter of mutual respect, and that’s the way it has to be in society too.

 

[JimG]

I’m not even really asking you to demonstrate it, although you should be able to, if there was a casual relationship there. SSM has been legal in Europe for several years now. If this was having some sort of destructive effect on society, we would begin to see the effects already.

But the key is, it needs to demonstrate a causal relationship. Quite often, I’ll hear people spout facts about rising divorce rates in nations with legal SSM. To the extent that these assertions cash out, they are merely correlations. They have as much validity as taking increased sales of hybrid SUVs in tandem with rising divorce rates, and claiming that one caused the other.

I guess I should clarify my own thinking here. I don’t think it is SSM that leads to rising divorce rates. It’s more like the reverse. The decline of marriage and family begins long before same sex marriage is even considered an option. In that regard, same sex marriage is one of the last indicators of family collapse, not one of the first. It is preceded by widespread acceptance of contraception, acceptance of pre-marital and extramarital sex, approval of abortion, etc. Only when family decline is well under way does SSM come into the picture.

In that regard, Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” does provide a wealth of data of the actual results flowing from the sexual revolution. That is a shorter time frame than Zimmerman is looking at in “Family and Civilization,” which covers thousands of years.

 

[iloveangels]

I guess I should clarify my own thinking here. I don’t think it is SSM that leads to rising divorce rates. It’s more like the reverse. The decline of marriage and family begins long before same sex marriage is even considered an option. In that regard, same sex marriage is one of the last indicators of family collapse, not one of the first. It is preceded by widespread acceptance of contraception, acceptance of pre-marital and extramarital sex, approval of abortion, etc. Only when family decline is well under way does SSM come into the picture.

In that regard, Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” does provide a wealth of data of the actual results flowing from the sexual revolution. That is a shorter time frame than Zimmerman is looking at in “Family and Civilization,” which covers thousands of years.

Jim. Are the consequences of this the reason you object to it?

 

[JimG]

FYI, Giants. Consequences are not the real reason why Catholics object to this, although consequences may occur from it, as they usually do from tampering with nature. Neither is political agreement or disagreement the real reason, which is neither here nor there as far as religion goes. Catholics don’t believe in this for religious reasons.

I’m not sure I agree with this. It seems to me that consequences must be one of the main reasons for objecting to SSM. If there were no consequences expected, there would be a lot less objection.

Sure, Catholics have moral objections so same sex marriage. But they also expect adverse consequences–for themselves as Catholics, for their ability to peacefuly practice their religion, but also for the effect of on the larger society of redefining marriage. I would not have particulary strong feelings about the matter if I did not believe that it will not only affect Catholics but also civil society adversely. I don’t object to Presbyterian marriage, or Calvinist marriage, or even justice of the peace marriage, because I don’t see them as a (further) threat to the structure of society. The same cannot be said of SSM.

(I posted this before I saw your question above.)

 

[XRU]

I find this to be a perfectly reasonable answer to those who want to call it “marriage”.
I doubt that any of them will accept it though. They reject the premise that there can’t be marriage between two people of the same sex.

Right . . . what it will be, marriage between same sex couples will be a union that co-opted marriage between man and a woman. Because, and everyone knows this without even having to think about it, that is what it is.

500 years from now marraige between same sex couples will be the OTHER marriage . . . and always will.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m not sure I agree with this. It seems to me that consequences must be one of the main reasons for objecting to SSM. If there were no consequences expected, there would be a lot less objection.

Sure, Catholics have moral objections so same sex marriage. But they also expect adverse consequences–for themselves as Catholics, for their ability to peacefuly practice their religion, but also for the effect of on the larger society of redefining marriage. I would not have particulary strong feelings about the matter if I did not believe that it will not only affect Catholics but also civil society adversely. I don’t object to Presbyterian marriage, or Calvinist marriage, or even justice of the peace marriage, because I don’t see them as a (further) threat to the structure of society. The same cannot be said of SSM.

(I posted this before I saw your question above.)

Then your reason for objecting to it is not primarily religious?

 

[JimG]

Then your reason for objecting to it is not primarily religious?

No. I don’t mind living in a society of religious pluralism. I do worry about living in a civl society bent on family and social collapse.

 

[iloveangels]

No. I don’t mind living in a society of religious pluralism. I do worry about living in a civl society bent on family and social collapse.

No, I"m not talking about religious pluralism. That doesn’t bother me either. I’m also not concerned with all this civil voting behavior and all that. I’m also not talking about psychology and health effects or any of that.

I’m talking about a set of beliefs that you have based on your religion – you know, based on what God wants, from Scripture or from the Catechism, salvation history, Fathers of the Church, etc.

 

[JimG]

No, I"m not talking about religious pluralism. That doesn’t bother me either. I’m also not concerned with all this civil voting behavior and all that. I’m also not talking about psychology and health effects or any of that.

I’m talking about a set of beliefs that you have based on your religion – you know, based on what God wants, from Scripture or from the Catechism, salvation history, etc.

I certainly believe in the tenets of Catholic moral theology, and I’m sure that disregarding moral law has bad consequences.

But I don’t oppose same sex marriage because it violates Catholic moral law. I oppose it because it violates common sense and further contributes to the decline of family structure, which in turn contributes to a host of social ills–and those all have severe civil consequences.

As I said before, I don’t blame SSM for beginning the deconstruction of society; that’s already been happening for awhile. I oppose it as a further step along the way to social collapse.

 

[iloveangels]

I certainly believe in the tenets of Catholic moral theology, and I’m sure that disregarding moral law has bad consequences.

But I don’t oppose same sex marriage because it violates Catholic moral law. I oppose it because it violates common sense and further contributes to the decline of family structure, which in turn contributes to a host of social ills–and those all have severe civil consequences.

As I said before, I don’t blame SSM for beginning the deconstruction of society; that’s already been happening for awhile. I oppose it as a further step along the way to social collapse.

Let me understand what you’re telling me. Where does Catholic moral law come from?

And doesn’t SSM violate Catholic teaching? Yet, that doesn’t bother you?

 

[JimG]

Let me understand what you’re telling me. Where does Catholic moral law come from?

And doesn’t SSM violate Catholic teaching? Yet, that doesn’t bother you?

Catholic moral law comes ultimately from the teachings of Christ, but please–I’m not a moral theologian nor an expert on the derivations of moral theology. It starts with Adam and Eve, continues into Old Testament, and is completed in New Testament with the teaching of Christ.

But that’s pretty far afield from what we’re talking about.

Any violation of moral law hurts not only the one violating it but all of society. We are interconnected. So my bad actions affect others. Those are just truisms of moral theology.

But to make reference to the two books I referenced before: Carle Zimmerman is no moral theologian. He didn’t base his observations on the collapse of civilizations on moral theology.

Mary Eberstadt is Catholic, I think–not sure–but her book is full of statistics, not moral theology.

One doesn’t have to make reference to moral theology to decide that society is on a destructive course.

And yes, any violations of moral theology bother me. My own sins bother me. But one need not even believe in Catholic moral theology to oppose same sex marriage, or even contraception.

 

[iloveangels]

Catholic moral law comes ultimately from the teachings of Christ, but please–I’m not a moral theologian nor an expert on the derivations of moral theology. It starts with Adam and Eve, continues into Old Testament, and is completed in New Testament with the teaching of Christ.

But that’s pretty far afield from what we’re talking about.

ON the contrary, it’s at the very heart of what we’re talking about.

Any violation of moral law hurts not only the one violating it but all of society. We are interconnected. So my bad actions affect others. Those are just truisms of moral theology.

But to make reference to the two books I referenced before: Carle Zimmerman is no moral theologian. He didn’t base his observations on the collapse of civilizations on moral theology.

Mary Eberstadt is Catholic, I think–not sure–but her book is full of statistics, not moral theology.

One doesn’t have to make reference to moral theology to decide that society is on a destructive course.

And yes, any violations of moral theology bother me. My own sins bother me. But one need not even believe in Catholic moral theology to oppose same sex marriage, or even contraception.

Then your objection is really political or sociological, and focused on the level of civil marriage.

 

[JimG]

ON the contrary, it’s at the very heart of what we’re talking about.

Then your objection is really political or sociological, and focused on the level of civil marriage.

Yes, because civil marriage is still marriage, and marriage is essential to family and civilization. Even religious marriage (except perhaps in France) is civil marriage, if it is recognized by the State.

When marriage devolves, so does family and society.